Saturday, March 8, 2014

I've done a thread on US service sidearms, and another on Italian
military pistols; but never one wholly dedicated to one of my
favorites; Beretta's 92FS/M9. I just picked up an M9A1 and finished
kitting it out, so i thought I would show it and my other two off today.
Also, recently I found a new home for my 2005 production M9, so soon it
will be handed over to a new owner after nearly a decade of being
mine. So this is a Goodbye dedication to it too, a pistol that has
served me well and never once malfunctioned on me. I've always enjoyed
shooting it and most everyone I've ever let do so too liked it. More
than a couple ended up buying one later themselves.
I took parts out of my 2 old threads; updated, corrected, and edited
them to form part of this one. Most here though has been newly shitted
out for your cullenary enjoyment!
Much like the classic debate over Cats vs. Dogs, we have the one that
goes something like the M1911A1 vs. the M9. So lets wade into the world
of military politics, backroom dealing, and arm chair commando'ing.

Born In Italy:
(Original first pattern 92 from the 1970s)

The Beretta M92FS or M9, is the most famous Italian pistol today, at
least in the U.S.A. There is much out there on this design, so i won't
even attempt to reproduce it all here. It is extremely interesting to
look at Beretta's first automatic, the Brevetto 1915, and compare it to
the 92FS. The lineage is more than a bit apparent. Of course the Beretta
92FS is the American general issue sidearm today, for all military
branches, under the designation of M9.

The model took inspiration from the 1951, but was a new design.
Development lasted from 1972 until 1975, with a limited production run
in 1976. In the late 1970s Pietro Beretta introduced the 92 as their
next-generation military and police handgun. It used the same Walther
pattern falling block locking system as the 1951, as well as the same
open topped slide; but there the similarities ended. The 92 is a double
action / single action automatic handgun, with lever type safety, 4.9"
long barrel, lightweight alloy frame, and double stack magazine with a
standard capacity of 15 rounds. extended magazines are available too.
The design quickly was altered to meet the needs of its users.
(A 92S, the first major variant in the family)

The 92S variant introduced a combination decocker/safety leverrelocated
to the slide, something requested by police agencies in both Europe and
North America. Originally, it was located at the rear of the pistol's
frame, similar to an FN High Power. The 92S-1 was an altered 92S, with
the magazine release moved from the heel to behind the trigger guard,
new ambidextrous safety, and vertical texturing applied to the grip
straps. The mag catch could be reversed, to suit either handed shooter
also. It was created for the first round of US military trials held in
1981.
(A 92SB, with updated controls and firing pin block)

The 92S-1 morphed into the 92SB which introduced an automatic firing pin
block, making the pistol drop-safe. The 92G had a decocker only safety
lever, and was made to fulfill the needs of the French military. The
92SBF version was built for the 1984 U.S. military XM9 trials. It had a
chrome lined barrel, as well as a corrosion resistant finish to all of
the metal parts. Beretta's name for this type of blued finish is
Bruniton. It also had a reshaped trigger guard and 100% parts
interchangeability. The designation of 92SBF was shortened to 92F in
1987, after the pistol had won the XM9 military trials.
The 92DS is a 92F, with a double action only trigger and bobbed hammer.
The 92D is the same firearm, but lacking a manual safety. Finally, the
92FS is an updated 92F, with improved metalergy and safety features. It
became the new M9 standard in 1989. Beretta has released many other
versions of the 92 design, some in different calibers and/or with
compact slides.

Trials and Tribulations in the USA:
(early commercial M9 'Special Edition,' with original style metal parts)

The famous or infamous Beretta M9 pistol. Some like it, some hate it,
and most just like to hate it, but will actually admit its not bad if
forced to do so. As with the M1911 nearly 75 years before, the Beretta
underwent years of testing and product improvement before it was
officially adopted into the United States Armed Forces as the Model 9
service pistol. It is still very much the current standard issue sidearm
today, despite frequently reoccurring rumours of its demise.

The story of the M9 goes back to the formation of the Joint Services
Small Arms Planning Commission in the late 1970s. This was the group
that decided that America's military should transition away from the .45
ACP cartridge, and adopt the 9x19mm round in order to have a common
handgun cartridge with other NATO member nations. Thus in 1979, trials
for a new handgun were announced and it was to be chambered for a
slightly modernized version of the 9x19mm Parabellum cartridge, later
designated as 9mm NATO. Ironically nearly the same cartridge had been
tested by the US military in 1907, when it first looked at the Luger.
This decision had the unintended side effect of making many marines'
heads explode.

In 1980, Beretta's entry of the 92S-1 for the first round of trials
conducted by the Air Force wonout over others submitted by such
companies as Colt, Smith & Wesson, FNH, and H&K. Naturally,
feeling that a bunch of flyboys couldn't know much about firearms, the
Army contested the results of the trial. Keep in mind, it was also the
Air Force that spearheaded the adoption of the M16. A rifle system so
terrible , that it only has lasted over 50 years in military service. So
in 1981, the Army announced a new round of testing to be administrated
by themselves, with their own particular criteria and standards. Again
Colt, H&K, SIG, and Beretta submitted pistols; and the Colt M1911A1
was used as a control. Beretta this time submitted its product improved
92SB and it failed the trials. Don't worry though, every other pistol
did too, including the entry from SIG. Most who studied all of the
standards and guidelines agree, that this round of testing was rigged to
favour the M1911A1. Why would the Army do that? so it could keep the
well loved old Colt and its .45 ACP cartridge as standard issue.

Though the USMC was perfectly happy with the outcome of this last round
of pistol trials, the USAF was not. Neither was Congress, who ordered a
third round in 1983, and just to tweek the Army's nose, the budget line
for funding to purchase additional .45 ACP ammunition was cut. So
basically, either choose something in 9mm or learn to fire rocks out of
the M1911A1 when ammo stocks run out in a few years.

In 1984, the XM9 trials were held, with entries from Colt, S&W, FNH,
H&K, SIG Sauer, Steyr, Walther, and Beretta. Again, Beretta
submitted an improved design, the 92SBF. Half of the designs were
disqualified early on for technical reasons, and the Walther and FN
didn't pass initial durability testing. In the end, it was between the
Beretta 92SBF and the SIG Sauer P226. The two ran neck and neck for a
time, with the beancounters even getting involved to see which pistol
package would be less expensive, even down to literally a few cents.
Naturally, the Beretta 92SBF pistol won again, and naturally many still
continued to protest. A rumour has even been widely circulated that
Beretta was tipped off (illegally) to SIG's bid, so it could come in
with a lower one. No hard evidence has ever come to light to support the
accusation though. What is very clear is that Beretta really wanted
that contract and would have done just about anything to win it. I think
in the end, they simply wanted it more than SIG Sauer, who was already
starting to show more interest in the law enforcement market.
Despite every objection and obsticle, in January of 1985, the 92SBF was
officially adopted into US military service as the Model 9 automatic
pistol. The Army, Air Force, and Navy all agreed to the new design; but
the Marines resisted and the Coast Guard did not have the funds for
large scale purchasing at the time. Nevertheless, adoption moved
forward, with M9 manufacturing transitioning from Beretta's Italian
factory, to their one in Accokeek, MD USA.

Shortly after adoption, two problems were noticed. First off, cracking
was observed in the frame, behind the grip. A military study concluded
this issue did not pose as a danger to the shooter and was only
cosmetically displeasing. Nevertheless, Beretta was ordered to fix the
problem if it wanted to retain its nice fat government contract. So by
1988, a retrofit was developed for the frame which successfully
prevented further cracks from appearing. The other issue was more
serious and had to do with M9 slides. In 1987, it seems some slides were
breaking and flying back to hit the shooters. These run-away slides
killed over 500 US serviceman and Beretta never even said 'sorry!'
No not really, only 3 slides actually separated from their frames in the
field and no one was seriously harmed, much less killed. During
testing, the military was able to reproduce the malfunction 11 times,
most occurring after 10,000 rounds and some not until after over 30,000.
Still this was not acceptable and the problem was eventually traced
back to slides manufactured with too soft metal produced in Italy. Some
also claimed (including Beretta themselves) the malfunctions were due in
part to over pressure ammunition having been used, though this doesn't
seem to have been the case. In 1988, the metalergy was improved and M9s
began to be 100% made in the USA at Beretta's US factory. A hammer pin
with an enlarged head was added to Beretta's improved 92FS design, which
even if the slide did break; would not allow it to separate from the
frame.

As a result of M9 problems, the XM10 trials were held in 1988 and again
Beretta won, with the product improved 92FS, which became the new
milspec for the M9. By 1990, the new pistol began to see widespread use
throughout all branches of the military, replacing old 1911s and
revolvers, of which many dated back to WWII and even WWI.

A Maturing Service Sidearm:
(M9 '20th Anniversary Edition,' with late style polymer parts)

Despite all of the negativity surrounding it and a bit of a rocky start,
the M9 has actually prooven to be a decent service sidearm. It replaced
a single action only design with a7 round magazine, whose safety could
only be engaged once the hammer was back afterall. The M9 has a smooth
trigger in double action, and an acceptably short and crisp single
action pull. It is lighter than the old Colt, but retains a 5" barrel,
and its sights are easier to acquire. It holds 15+1 rounds, and the
safety is both ambidextrous and can be engaged with the hammer down.
This means the slide can be fully racked, with the safety constantly
engaged, which can be useful in certain situations. The M9 is reliable
and durable, and not highly succeptible to harsh climates. It is easier
to field strip and clean than the M1911 as well. So have I sold you
yet? Of course the Beretta isn't perfect and has its downsides too, but
its not the worst thing ever and the 9mm cartridge can be just as
leathal as a .45. The top three complaints that soldiers express about
this pistol are: its caliber, its weight, and its grip size. On the
other hand, many like its large capacity and its low felt recoil. As to
caliber, don't blame the Beretta. The US government wanted a 9mm, and no
matter which handgun was going to be selected, it was going to be in
that caliber. I am sure Beretta would have offered a version of the 92
in .45 ACP if the trials had called for such a thing.

In 1985, the US military placed an initial order for just under 316,000
pistols with Beretta USA. Then in 1989, a second large order for 50,000
was placed. Throughout the 1990s, Beretta delivered pistols to all
branches of the military at regular intervals, with completion in 1998.

In 2002, the USAF ordered an additional 19,000 M9s as the war in
Afghanistan was heating up. 60,000 more were ordered in 2005 and were to
be distributed to all branches of the military, as everyone was needing
more sidearms in Iraq.

Since 1990, the M9's design and construction has changed very little.
Really only some of the small parts are different today. Around 2001,
the magazine catch, lanyard ring, and trigger were switched from metal
to polymer. Well actually, the trigger has a steel core, with a polymer
outer coating. The magazine floorplate was changed from one made of
metal, to one made of the same polymer; at least on Beretta and Mec-Gar
magazines. The grip screws were changed from having a slotted head, to a
hex type. A short time later, the hollow round steel guide rod was
replaced with a fluted polymer one. Finally, a few years later, the
safety too was switched to polymer, which some sources claim also has a
metal core (but I myself have not varified this). Naturally, using
polymer parts did save on weight a bit and was less expensive, but those
were not the only reasons. The polymer mag catch puts less wear on
magazines and the polymer baseplate withstands being dropped onto the
ground better. The polymer safety and trigger can not rust like steel
parts could, which since these parts make contact with often sweaty
hands regularly, is a consideration. Of course the one switch that is
often most criticized is the polymer guide rod. Actually though, this is
a clear upgrade from the original. The round rod could trap sand in
between the slide, hampering the pistol's performance. This is why the
new rod is fluted. The old rod was partially hollow, so it was possible
to bend it in extreme situations, such as dropping the pistol muzzle
first onto a hard surface, with the slide retracted or by launching it
into a wall during disassembly. A metal rod could bend slightly and
impact the pistol's functioning, but a polymer rod is either fine or
broken in two. No ambiguity there as to if you have a servicible or junk
part.

Internally, the only change of note occurred to the locking block. In
the early 1990s, just after the M9 began to see deployment in real
numbers, Beretta introduced a new stronger block. This was done to
insure the pistol could handle a continuous diet of 9mm +P ammunition,
without experiencing a major breakage that is. Finally, around 2000, at
least some M9s were manufactured with a backstrap that was scalloped
slightly at the top. I know this was done with commercial 92FSs to allow
shooters with smaller hands to obtain a higher grip, however only
recently have I learned that some military M9s also feature it. Still
though, the design has changed remarkably little considering how long it
has been not only in production, but in the field under actual combat
conditions. That has to say something about Beretta and its original
92FS design. Even the legendary M1911 had to be updated with some
changes, after it saw real world use during and after WWI.

The M9 began its service in the first Gulf War, and has since seen
action all around the globe. There was discussion in the early 2000s of
replacing the Beretta with a different design; which many were hoping
would hail a return to the .45 ACP cartridge. Both the Army and Special
Operations Forces went as far as combining their efforts in the Joint
Combat Pistol Program, in 2005. The JCP called for a .45 pistol, with
and without a manual safety, and the ability to except extended capacity
magazines and to be able to mount lasers and lights. Commercially
available models from many manufacturers were discussed. These included
ones from S&W, H&K, SIG, FNH, and Beretta.

However, in 2006, further funding for research and testing of possible
M9 replacements under the JCP Program was drastically cut. Then the Army
withdrew and it became just the CP Program lead only by Spec-Ops. At
the same time, the M9A1 was accepted into service by the USMC, who were
tired of the Army and Air Force arguing over what exactly the
requirements for the new wonder pistol should be. Instead, the USMC took
a prooven design and requested a few minor but important updates.

The M9A1 is a modernized Beretta M9 with the addition of a Picatinny
rail under the barrel. The trigger guard was strengthened and reshaped,
to allow easy use with lights and lasers mounted on the rail. The grip
was also redesigned with checkered front and back straps, as well as
having a beveled magazine well. It includes a new type of magazine, with
a sand releaf groove running vertically on each side. Additionally, the
magazine has a new PVD applied 'anti-friction' finish, which is
supposed to offer greater feeding reliability in dry and dusty
environments.

The USMC originally ordered 3,500 M9A1s, and increased its order to
7,500 at the end of 2006. Two years later, it ordered 500 additional
pistols. Other branches though continued to use and even order new
standard M9s. In 2007, the Army and Navy together ordered 10,500
standard M9s, to replace wornout or destroyed sidearms. So what happened
to the CP Program and the would-be .45 replacement for the M9?
Basically it was killed altogether that same year.

At the beginning of 2010, when the M9 reached its 25th adoption
anniversary, Beretta stated at the time, that over 800,000 pieces had
been purchased and delivered to the United States military. By the
beginning of 2014, thousands more M9 and M9A1s have been shipped out.
The military estimates that as many as 1,000,000 M9s will be in service
before the model is retired. It has successfully out lived any possible
replacements that have come along to date.

Several different makes and types of magazines have been used in and
issued with the M9 pistol. During the 1980s, they were Beretta factory
which I believe even back then were made under contract by Mec-Gar. In
the 1990s, the military purchased some mags directly from Mec-Gar,
before switching to ones manufactured in the USA by Check-Mate. CM was
awarded the contract for a simple reason, it had the lowest bid and was
considered a 'low risk' contracter. Much has been made today about how
CM mags are unreliable junk, but honestly it isn't the company's fault.
It built magazines to the military specs it was given, heavy phosphated
coating and all. Of course, with such a low bid, CM did cut some
manufacturing corners too.

It was these CM mags that Americans went to war with in Afghanistan and
Iraq in 2001-2003. In those harsh environments, they prooved to be less
than reliable. In particular, the milspec coating used was found to
attract and collect sand and dust, especially when well oiled. When not
well oiled though, magazines could sometimes stick, and since the inside
of the mag tube was also phosphated, the follower itself could fail to
rise properly; causing feed problems. In 2005, the military looked into
the numerous reports of M9 failures in the field, and came to the
conclusion that the magazines were primarily to blame.

In 2006, a contest was held to select a new vender to supply M9
magazines to the military. The three main contenders were Triple K,
Airtronic, and Check-Mate. With the lowest bid and an improved mag
design, Airtronic was awarded the contract in 2008. The company claims
it referred to the original Beretta/Mec-Gar blueprints and notes, when
designing its version of the M9 magazine. Of course it also had to
conform to milspec requirements too. It was still phosphated, but with a
thinner/smoother coating, and the inside of the tube wasn't as heavily
finished either. The baseplate was changed to thinner stamped steel to
both save on weight and cost also.
After loosing the contract, Check-Mate went back and redesigned its own
magazine model. Mec-Gar, though it didn't enter into recent US military
mag trials, has kept its own 92FS/M9 magazines up to date, including an
improved phosphate finish and polymer baseplate. Beretta itself designed
the M9A1 type magazine in 2005, with its enhanced PVD coating.

Today the military issues several types of magazines for the M9. Older
MG and CM ones are still in inventory, there are plenty of Airtronics
floating around, and many Beretta PVD mags are now in the field. On top
of those, recently CM was given another chance and several of its new,
improved magazines were purchased in 2012. Though nothing mechanical can
ever be made 100% reliable, in all environments, all of the time; these
new generation mags are performing much better than the older ones.
Also keep in mind that when the milspec finish for the M9 magazine was
outlined in the 1980s, planners were concerned with protecting the metal
from moisture, as Vietnam and tropical warfare were still on their
minds. It took time and a bit of trial and error to adapt the weapon
system for optimal performance in a desert climate.

Most agree that the factory PVD mags work the best in Iraq, with
phosphated MGs coming in as a close second. Airtronics aren't quite
thought of as highly, but I've been unable to find many specific cases
where a failure was directly attributable to their magazine. Even the
newer CMs are doing fine. In other words, it appears as if most of the
kinks have been worked out of the design now.

(A current production Beretta factory extended 30rd magazine)

As for capacity, the standard M9 magazine holds 15 rounds; however, the
pistol can feed from any 92FS comparable magazine. Early on, Beretta
also offered an extended 20 rounder for use in the select fire variant,
and for law enforcement users of the semi 92 series. Recently, an
enlarged capacity and flush fit version was released, which holds 17
cartridges. If that is still not enough firepower, Beretta just released
a long 30 rounder, with grip extension. 30 round mags have been
available on the aftermarket for years, but they were never terribly
reliable. The new factory high-capper though is prooving to be about as
reliable as any 9mm magazine so long with such a strong spring, can be.

The M12 ambidextrous universal holster was designed by Bianchi in the
1980s, specifically for the US military to use with the M9. Though many
soldiers use newer, more modern holster designs today, the M12 is still
the official general issue M9 holster. Other accessories include the
M1025 dual magazine pouch (also by Bianchi), the M1015 pistol belt, and a
nylon lanyard cord. Often times though, soldiers private purchase gear
that they feel better suits their individual needs and tastes. Several
different makes and models of pouches have NSNs, and often rather than
using an official lanyard, simple para-cord is substituded for.

Because Everyone Else Is Doing it, the M9 vs....
I am going to try and keep this short, but I will probably fail at it.
Everyone always compares the 92FS/M9 to the P226, Glock, and M1911A1.
Its practically a weekend passtime in the firearms community. Still it
is interesting. The 92FS and P226 are true contemperaries, the M1911A1
is at least two generations older than the 92FS, and the Glock is nearly
a full generation younger.
The M1911A1 and the 92FS honestly do not share much in common, aside
from the simple fact that they both survived very intensive testing and
abuse at the hands of the US military. The M1911A1 has a larger caliber
going for it, as well as a slimmer grip and better SAO trigger. It also
has a frame mounted safety, which many prefer. However, it can only be
engaged with the hammer back. The M1911A1 falls short when it comes to
capacity. It might fire a large bullet, but it only holds 7 to 8 rounds
in its magazine. It also has more felt recoil, small profile sights, has
no ambidextrous controls, disassembles into several parts (some quite
small too), and its hammer must be cocked before firing. The 92FS holds
more than twice as many rounds, has a DA/SA trigger, ambidextrous safety
that also decocks the hammer, disassembles into 6 larger parts, and has
larger profile sights. That said, yes it holds more but 9mm is
considered less effective than .45 ACP by many. Then again, 9mm has less
felt recoil and produces less muzzle flip than .45, so its easier for
novices to hit accurately with. The M1911A1 has always required a bit of
skill and experience to shoot accurately. The 92FS is lighter than the
M1911A1, but only by about 4 oz when both are fully loaded. Its DA
trigger is smooth but heavy, making an accurate first shot difficult for
some. Others criticise its SA trigger, but mine feels about as heavy as
an SAO on a military M1911A1. People should remember that there are
differences between a commercial M1911A1 and a standard milspec one,
especially in trigger quality. Still any M1911A1's trigger can be made
very nice, and there is only so much one can do to improve the 92FS's.
The Beretta's safety is reliable and durable, but many do not like its
placement on the slide. Some even activate it accidentally when racking
the slide. The 92FS's grip is larger than the M1911A1s, which is a
problem for people with smaller hands. Some anyway. I have smaller hands
and I find it comfortable enough. When it comes to reliability, tests
have proven that actually a well maintained M9 will go longer in
between stoppages, than a well maintained milspec M1911A1. Both are very
reliable pistols though.

Moving on to SIG's P226, it and the 92FS have much in common. In fact,
since they were both designed and modified for the XM9 trials and made
it to the final round, they both look very similar on paper. Both have
alloy frames with steel slides, fire 9mm, have DA/SA triggers, a
decocking device, a standard magazine capacity of 15 rounds, and are
easily disassembled into 6 large parts. Both are equally durable really,
and both have an equally heavy trigger in DA and only a so-so one in
SA. Many people like the P226's frame mounted decocking lever better
than the 92FS's slide mounted combination decocker/safety. However, the
P226 lacks a manual safety of any kind and its decocker is not
ambidextrous. Weight and size of the two designs are roughly the same,
though the SIG has a slightly shorter 4.5" barrel. The P226 lost out to
the 92FS because of its associated costs, but today it does serve with
the Navy SEALs as the MK25 and the compact P228 is in limited use
accross all branches as the M11. So SIG didn't totally loose the XM9
trials. Well technically they did, but they did obtain later (if much
smaller) military contracts.

And finally, the Glock G17. The G17 came out in the early 1980s but was
not qualified to even enter the XM9 trials because it was striker fired;
not hammer. Also, at that time very few people were open minded enough
to give a polymer framed pistol a fair chance. It took over a decade for
it to gain widespread acceptance, and Glock had to work and market hard
to get where it is today. The 92FS was just conventional enough for the
military in 1980 and even then, Beretta had had half a decade to refine
it. The Glock is lighter than the Beretta, holds 17 rounds standard, is
both durable and reliable, and is instinctive to operate for most
users. Its frame really can't rust, and its slide and barrel are very
resistant to it. On the otherhand, its striker firing system means it
has to be cocked before firing and in the event of a miss fire, the
slide must be retracted to reset the striker for a second attempt. The
G17 lacks both a decocker and manual safety, but does have 3 automatic
ones. Like the 92FS, it has a larger grip, but more so front to back
then side to side. Both are equally reliable, but the Glock requires
less oiling. The Glock does look superior to the Beretta on paper, but
keep in mind it is from a more recent generation of service handguns.
Comparing these two, would have been like comparing the M1911A1 to the
Walther P.38 half a century ago. The fact remains, the Glock G17 was
simply not ready when the XM9 trials were held; and even if it were, the
US military was not ready for a polymer framed pistol. Hell, back then
it was barely accepting of a frame made of alloy rather than steel.

The M1911A1 is a truely Classic pistol, right up there with the P.08
Luger. Unlike the Luger though, it is still a viable combat weapon
today, for certain shooters and in certain situations at least. The SIG
P226 is one of the best firearms in its class, and its difficult to find
anyone who seriously dislikes it. Pretty much the same can be said for
the Glock series. They are all just great service sidearms: reliable,
durable, accurate, and none cost a mint to manufacture either. And right
there with them all, is the Beretta 92FS/M9. It has its faults and
flaws, but so does every other firearm ever dreamed up. Its heavy
trigger at least, really can not be blamed on Beretta either. It was
neccessary to have it in order to satisfy the milspec for safety and
reliable primer ignition of all ammunition types. I do not feel the
M1911A1 is superior to the M9, and I do feel it is at least on par with
both the P226 and Glock.

the Future of the M9:
Today, the 92FS is one of the most popular handguns in the world. It has
seen use by dozens of militaries and hundreds of police departments.
The 1951 might have put Pietro Beretta on the International firearms
map, but the 92 secured the company's position. It is an incredibly
reliable, durable, and accurate handgun. The slide moves as if it is on
ballbarings, the controls are instinctive, and it has a simplistic field
strip procedure (like most all of Beretta's pistols). This is just
personal taste of course, but I appreciate how it handles and shoots. My
own examples have never once jammed or otherwise malfunctioned. I have
found it to be even more reliable than a Glock or SIG. It is well made,
with nice machining and attention to detail, especially for a general
issue military sidearm. If you can't tell, it is one of my very favorite
pistols of all time.

However, to hear tell in gunshops, online forums, and at gunshows; the
92FS/M9 is a giant piece of shit, that both endangers the shooter
directly by flying apart in the hand and by being so unreliable that one
is lucky to get more than 2 shots off without a jam. Like I said at the
beginning of this thread, people seem to love to hate on the Beretta.
So for years, rumours have abounded that the military is going to
replace the M9 with something else. Young, modern Mall Ninjas and
Tactical Commandos want whatever is the most recent, hottest fad in the
firearms community. Older long retired Vets and civilian Arm Chair
Commandos though, basically have always wanted a return to the good old
Colt M1911A1. And there in lies the problem, much like the public, the
branches of the military haven't been able to come together and decide
on even a possible replacement for the M9. Hell, they can't even agree
on what the requirements for a new sidearm should be. From time to time,
a Special Forces unit in one of the services will purchase a small
number of handguns, say 500 to 5,000; and often times this is what gets a
new rumour going that the entire US military is about to replace the
M9. Other times, small studies and limited trials are held, featuring
various pistols.
Meanwhile, if one zooms out and looks at the bigger picture, its pretty
clear the M9 still has a future with our Armed Forces. In 2009, Beretta
made quite a big deal out of announcing the fact that it had just
secured a 5 year contract with the US government, which might call for
as many as 450,000 new M9 and M9A1 pistols. These pistols were for both
domestic use and for use by American overseas Allies. Beretta's 5 year
mission to Boldly go where no firearms company has gone before, ends
this year,however in 2012, an additional 5 year order was placed for
100,000 more pistols.

Its true that in 2014, the military plans to again examine off the shelf
current production pistol designs from half a dozen manufacturers,
including Colt, S&W, and even Beretta; but honestly know one could
possibly know for sure if what they find will result in any changes. The
military has invested so much time, training, and funding into the M9.
Switching to a new design would cost substantially more than maintaining
the existing one, and for what? Yes, the M9 has faults and failings but
if it were total trash, even the US military wouldn't have kept it
around for nearly 30 years. The simple truth is, any pistol design will
have hidden, unknown faults; which will only come out after being put
through the total shit that only the military can dish out oh so well.
On top of that, yes many modern 21st century pistol designs are better
than the Beretta, which dates back to the 1970s; but are they so much
better, so much of a leap ahead that its worth investing millions to
re-equip our entire military with them? And if we did conduct another
round of testing and trials, it would take years (if not a decade) like
it did both in 1910 and 1985. The Beretta 92 was quite advanced in 1975
but it took 10 years for it to be adopted and another 5 for it to be
perfected and deployed. So a pistol that is state-of-the-art by today's
standards, by the time it was actually fielded several years later,
wouldn't be the newest and greatest thing any more. The military could
spend millions of dollars and countless manhours today to adopt
something that is marginally better than the Beretta, or it could wait
until there really is a revolutionary step forward in handgun technology
and adopt that pistol instead. Finally, one also has to ask, just how
important is the pistol to the average 21st soldier? I am not talking
about Special Forces or troops on special assignment, I am talking about
just your normal officer or NCO who is issued a pistol as a matter of
course.

For soldiers with unique needs or for specific missions, there are other
pistols available already such as the SIG Sauer P228 M11 and P226 MK25,
the HK MK23 Mod 0, and even the Glock G19. In addition to those modern
pistols, both the USMC and Navy retain the good old M1911A1 in their
inventories. They do not have many, but when an original one wears out,
they do purchase a new one from Colt or Springfield. Just a few years
ago, the Marines bought 4,500 from Colt in fact. Still, for most
soldiers and in most situations, the M9 with good magazines manages to
provide acceptable service. If the soldier needs to attach a laser or
light device, there are aftermarket adapters available for the M9, and
even the railed M9A1 if there is no other practical solution. There is
another benefit of the Beretta. It has been around so long, and used by
so many, that virtually every parts and accessories vender offers gear
for it. Its no problem to find magazines, sights, holsters, grips, and
lasers designed specifically to work with the 92FS/M9.

So in the end, though many wish to replace the thing, none seem to be
able to come up with enough justifications to actually do so. The M9 is
good enough for now, and the military has indicated that it will remain
standard issue until at least 2020. Afterall, they are still buying the
things. They stopped buying M1911A1s in 1945, but kept that one as GI
for 40 more years. Of course they did have a shit ton of them stock
piled up after WWII, so they didn't exactly need more. Maybe in a decade
or so, something truely new and advanced will have come along, which
can really benefit and protect our soldiers? At the end of the day, that
is what its all about too. Its not about which we as individuals like
more, be it the Glock or M&P or Beretta or even the M1911A1; its
about giving our soldiers the best gear, but balanced against the costs.
Don't forget where those millions of dollars the military spends comes
from. Its ultimately tax payer money. The government bean counters
shouldn't have the run of things, but some more actual fiscal
responsibility and spending restraint within our government (including
our military) would honestly be a welcome change.

So I say hold off on totally replacing the M9, and only re-equip a few
troops with more modern off the shelf designs as needed. Do this until
the millions it would cost to select and field a new service sidearm are
truely justified. Look at the M9 vs. the M1911A1. The M1911 has many
virtues and is even better than the M9 in some areas, but the M9 is
clearly a more advanced design, generationally speaking. We need to wait
until we can make that kind of technological leap forward, before
moving to a completely new GI sidearm. As to those who think we should
just go back to the M1911A1, as our GI sidearm, I can only say that's a
truely stupid idea. It also shows a lack of understanding of our modern
military, its missions, and the abilities of its soldiers. Yes, in some
situations, the M1911A1 is the right tool for the job, but those are in
the minority today. Its like a specialized star headed screw driver;
great and even required for removing one type of screw. The M9 is more
like a flathead screw driver. Its not especially great at any one thing
(and you sure can't use it to remove that special star head screw), but
damn is it useful for general work. Really what most like about the
M1911A1 is its .45 ACP cartridge. The US military just isn't going to go
back to it again, forget about it. Having a GI handgun that uses the
NATO standard round is very important at the strategic level. This is
also why something like .40 S&W won't become the US military's new
service cartridge either, at least not until the rest of NATO also moves
away from 9mm. That doesn't look likely either, because much like the
M9 itself, 9mm NATO is a good enough round for now. It may not have
quite the knockdown power of the big-old .45 ACP, but on the other hand
it is lighter so soldiers can carry more, it has less felt recoil so its
easier for novices to use effectively, and because its smaller more can
be squeezed into a magazine. Finally, if we replaced the Beretta M9 and
9mm NATO, what would all those gunshop, forums, and gunshow people have
to bitch about then? I tell you what they'd do, they'd start
complaining about the new service pistol. Probably even before more than
10,000 were in the field. Hell probably the same day the new adoption
was announced! And you know what else? then the Beretta M9 would slowly
but surely start to become the best thing ever in the minds of the
shooting public. The M1911A1 had more than its share of critics and
complaints surrounding it too; especially in Korea and Vietnam. It
wasn't until it was being replaced that so many civilians started to
treat it like it was firearms perfection. What happened was when the
Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994, single stack low cap
pistols like the M1911A1 went from being moderately popular, to
extremely so. In the 1970s and 1980s, so called 'Wonder 9s' were all the
rage, with their double stack high capacity magazines. Since the AWB
limited civilian handguns to either preban magazines or low-cap 10
rounders, most felt that if they couldn't have lots of shots, they might
as well have powerful ones. I lived through that era. I can recall the
shift from one style to the other. Of course, that is only one factor
too.

For now, it sure looks as if the Beretta M9 will remain the US
military's standard service sidearm, for at least another combat
generation. Just as a side note, after a decade of developing and
testing possible replacements for the Colt M4 and M16A4, just last year
the military announced it would update the rifles it already has and not
adopt a wholey new platform. I suspect we will see something rather
similar happen with the M9.